A professional headshot is a head-and-shoulders image that shows you at your best, with an amazing expression, great lighting, and a modern, clean look. Typically it's used on LinkedIn, your company website, email signature, and other social platforms.

Do I need a professional headshot?

Yes. Not only do you need a headshot, but you need a good one. A headshot is your digital calling card, and as more business is done virtually, having a headshot that accurately represents your brand is more important than ever.

What is the process of getting a headshot like?

The process is collaborative, empowering, and fun. Pete Coco shoots tethered to his computer, so you review the images in real time together and find the best angles, poses, and clothing. Full sessions with multiple outfit changes and express sessions are both available.

What's the difference between a headshot and a portrait?

A headshot is a head-and-shoulders image with a simple background, showing you at your best, like a LinkedIn headshot. A portrait can be close up, half length, or full length, and uses more creative lighting and poses.

Are corporate headshots different than acting headshots?

Yes, but there is some overlap. Clothing, styling, expressions, and poses vary for acting and corporate headshots, but more important is hiring a photographer who understands your brand and goals. Each session is tailored to the client's needs.

Do you recommend a makeup artist for a headshot session?

Yes, a makeup artist is recommended for female clients. Pete Coco works with a makeup artist who understands how to apply makeup specifically for headshots. If you choose to do your own makeup, the key is to keep everything simple, not use a lot of foundation, and avoid dark color around the eyes.

Should I have my hair done before my headshot session?

Yes. For women, having your hair done the day of the shoot gives the best results. For men, it's best to get a haircut a day or two before your session so the hair settles and doesn't have spiky edges as can happen with a fresh cut. Special techniques are available for clients without hair as well.

Where is Pete Coco Photography's studio located?

The main studio is located in Garden City on Long Island, with plenty of free street parking and a five minute walk from the LIRR Nassau Blvd train stop. There is also a location in Brooklyn at 20 Grand Ave near the Navy Yard.

How much do professional headshots cost?

Professional headshot prices vary based on the photographer, their expertise, location, and other factors. Pricing is available via the Get Pricing link, and special quotes are available for branding sessions or team headshots at your office.

How long does a headshot session take?

A typical session is under an hour, though full sessions can run up to 2 hours for clients who need multiple images. An express session for one great headshot takes about 20 minutes.

What should I wear to my corporate headshot session?

Blues, neutrals, and form fitted options generally work best. A complete breakdown is available at https://petecocophoto.com/blog/how-to-dress-for-a-headshot

What should I wear to my acting headshot session?

Actors should bring as many outfit options as possible, including neutrals and form fitted shirts for a clean commercial look. A full breakdown is available at https://petecocophoto.com/blog/what-to-wear-acting-headshot-long-island

Do you photograph groups or teams for corporate headshots?

Yes. Pete Coco works with teams of various sizes and travels to client locations for headshots, event photos, and videography, including out-of-state travel when needed.

Do you edit or retouch the photos?

Yes. Any purchased photo is professionally retouched, including cleaning up skin and hair edges and softening lines and shadows, done subtly and realistically so the image looks like you on your best day.

How far in advance should I book my headshot session?

Booking 2-4 weeks in advance is recommended since the schedule tends to fill up quickly, though it's worth reaching out directly to check for earlier availability.

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 Mark I vs. Mark II Showdown

Gear Review

In this review we're comparing the original Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 lens to the brand new Mark II version.

I've owned the original 16-55mm for about a decade, and it's been one of my staple lenses for professional work. If you've never used it, just know it's easily one of the top five Fujifilm lenses out there. So when the new version was announced, I wasn't exactly rushing to get my hands on one, for two reasons. First, I wasn't sure how they'd improve the image quality while making the whole thing smaller and lighter. Second, since I am happy with the Mark I, I didn't feel the need to run out and replace it.

After using it however, I was pleasantly surprised in a lot of ways. I put the new lens through an outdoor concert shoot photographing a string quartet, followed by some controlled studio comparisons, which you can see in my YouTube video linked below. I don't usually do pixel-peeping breakdowns, but in this case I made an exception since I was really interested in whether they improved the image quality.

Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 original lens next to the new 16-55mm f/2.8 Mark II

Quick Take

✓Size and weight: Considerably smaller and lighter than the original

✓Build: Still an external zoom, familiar handling, new aperture click switch and lock which are slightly less firm

✓Autofocus: Fast and accurate, matching the already excellent original

✓Image quality: Sharper overall, and a small boost in brightness

Check Current Price on Amazon

Design: Smaller and Lighter, In a Big Way

It's hard to tell from the photos, but the new lens isn't just marginally smaller and lighter, it's a meaningful difference in the hand and on the shoulder. It's noticeably less bulky, to the point where it barely feels like a constant f/2.8 zoom.

These small weight and size savings add up very quickly, especially when you are lugging a bag of gear around all the time. I take the subway all the time to photograph concerts around New York, and every ounce adds up once that bag is full. This is the kind of upgrade that is often overlooked, but one of the best we can get.

Sample shot from the outdoor concert shoot with the 16-55mm f/2.8 Mark II

The new model still uses an external zoom, not internal, and the zoom and focus rings are close enough in size to the original that switching between them feels instantly familiar. The zoom ring has been criticized by some for being less smooth than the original, but it feels fine on my copy. The aperture ring is definitely not as firm in each click as the old one, but I also found it to be acceptable.

There are a couple of welcome additions too. A click on/off switch on the aperture ring, useful for video work when you want a silent aperture change. And an aperture lock, which honestly should be standard on every Fujifilm lens at this point. Build quality still feels good, though there's a bit more plastic involved than the original. Long-term durability is still an open question, since I've had this lens for about two weeks for review. My original lens has survived years of daily professional use without missing a beat, and I'm hoping the new version holds up just as well.

Autofocus

Autofocus is fast, snappy, and accurate, matching the original. That's genuinely high praise, since the original has always been one of the best-focusing lenses in the Fujifilm lineup. The new version holds that same standard, although I wouldn't go as far as to say I noticed it being any better on my X-T5.

Image Quality: The Pixel Peeping

Both lenses were shot on an X-T5, on a tripod, with identical settings, about as close to a controlled test as I can manage in my studio.

You can see the sample images here and get the full pixel peep from my YouTube video, since I zoom in very closely throughout.

Sample comparison shot, original 16-55mm lens

Sample comparison shot, new 16-55mm f/2.8 Mark II lens

Sample 2, Mk I

Sample 2, Mk II

Sample 3, Mk I

Sample 3, Mk II

Overall verdict on image quality: it's definitely sharper, especially in the corners, with a small bump in brightness around the edges as a bonus. Since the original lens is excellent, this is really some high praise, and Fujifilm did an incredible job making it even better. If you're someone who genuinely cares about squeezing out every last bit of detail, the Mark II version is the way to go.

Pros

✓ Considerably smaller and lighter than the original ✓ Familiar handling, same external zoom, similar rings ✓ New aperture click switch and aperture lock ✓ Autofocus on par with the excellent original ✓ Sharper corners, slightly brighter images

Cons

✓ A bit more plastic in the build ✓ Long-term durability an open question ✓ Center sharpness gain is fairly subtle wide-angle ✓ Expensive upgrade, especially if you already own the original

Conclusion

If you're deciding between the Mark I and Mark II version of this lens, and budget isn't a major obstacle, go with the new one. The upgrades are real and worth it for a first-time buyer.

If you already own the original, the math gets more complicated. It's a genuine improvement, but it's still a significant amount of money for a lens that already performs at a high level. You'll also likely not notice the small amount of added sharpness and detail in real life, so if you're considering both, you might want to base your decision more on the size and weight savings. At this point, I'm personally not going to upgrade from my old version, but when I do, it will be a welcome addition to my bag for all the reasons mentioned in this review.

Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8, Original and Mark II

Check Mark II Price on Amazon Check Original Version Price on Amazon

Want to grow as a portrait photographer?

If you're a photographer looking to grow as an artist and business person, the Portrait Community is for you. Work hands on with me in a small, supportive group that's dedicated to helping you become the creative you've always dreamed of being.

Learn More

Peter CocoJuly 23, 2026